The case involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) and the athlete Erivonaldo Florêncio De Oliveira Filho, who tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on several key legal issues, confirming that national federations can be held accountable for decisions made by their affiliated tribunals, even if those tribunals are operationally independent. This principle aligns with international law, where states are liable for judicial decisions regardless of the separation of powers. The CAS also affirmed WADA's right to appeal under FIFA's Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR), particularly when sanctions are reduced.
The athlete claimed he unknowingly ingested Stanozolol through a food supplement provided by friends and argued for a reduced sanction due to no significant fault or negligence. However, the CAS found the athlete failed to prove how the substance entered his system or demonstrate minimal care in avoiding prohibited substances. The risks of contaminated supplements are well-known in sports, and the athlete's failure to verify the supplement's contents constituted significant negligence. Consequently, the CAS upheld WADA's appeal, ruling that the standard two-year sanction should not be reduced.
The procedural history began with the athlete's positive test in November 2013, leading to a provisional suspension and a two-year ban by the Brazilian sports tribunal (STJD). The STJD later reduced the sanction to one year under certain conditions, prompting WADA's appeal to the CAS. The CAS emphasized that athletes bear the responsibility to ensure no prohibited substances enter their bodies and that ignorance or negligence does not absolve them of liability. The decision reinforces strict liability in anti-doping regulations and underscores the importance of due diligence by athletes regarding supplements.
The CBF argued it lacked standing to be sued, as the STJD operates independently under Brazilian law, but the CAS rejected this, citing previous rulings that held the CBF responsible for STJD decisions in international contexts. The athlete also claimed his rights were violated during the initial notification process, as he was not informed of his right to request laboratory documentation. The CAS dismissed this argument, noting the athlete provided no evidence to support it and had waived his right to analyze the "B" sample.
The CAS ultimately reinstated the original two-year sanction, concluding the athlete's fault was significant and unjustified. The sanction was backdated to the date of the sample collection (November 13, 2013), considering procedural delays not attributable to the athlete. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the need for athletes to exercise extreme caution with any substances they ingest. The CAS dismissed all other requests for relief not specifically addressed in the decision, issuing the final award on July 9, 2015.